Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 54
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    36

    Salomon QST mounting

    To the mags thatís have skied the QST 106ís and 118ís what you opinion on mounting. Mount at recommended. Mounting forward or back? I tried to search the forum for this topic and couldnít find anything. Appreciate the help!


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    14,411
    I have my rocker2 118 at center. Maybe 1mm back, but I think their lines are pretty good.

    Sent from my XT1650 using TGR Forums mobile app

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    T-town, CO. USA
    Posts
    2,098
    On. The. Line.
    Leave No Turn Unstoned!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    5,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Skidog View Post
    I have my rocker2 118 at center.[/URL]
    You mean Rocker 2 122? They didn't make a 118. Very different ski, personally I would mount the Rocker 2 at -2 cm. The QST skis I would mount on the line unless I was stepping up in length.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    36
    Iím skiing the 118ís in the 192 and the 106ís in the 188


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    14,411


    Sorry 115. But yeah more or less like factory lines. I'm at -5ish on these

    Sent from my XT1650 using TGR Forums mobile app

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    United States of Aburdistan
    Posts
    7,278
    Uh, Ski Dog, that's a totally different ski, are you paying attention here?

    I own the Rocker2 and the QST 118 and they are quite different.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    14,411
    Quote Originally Posted by muted View Post
    Uh, Ski Dog, that's a totally different ski, are you paying attention here?

    I own the Rocker2 and the QST 118 and they are quite different.
    ive skied both and aside from the flatter tail on the QST i think they ski quite similarly...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    14,411
    QST 118 185cm is 142, 118, 129
    R2 115 188cm is 139, 115, 131

    I didnt notice a HUGE difference in the way these skied, and would still stick with the recco lines.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    45
    How do the people that have skied the QST 118 like 'em?

    I have pair still in the wrapper, but wasn't thrilled Outdoor Gear Lab (who have great climbing gear reviews, maybe more iffy ski gear reviews) rated them dead fucking last:

    https://www.outdoorgearlab.com/topic...st-powder-skis

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Swiss alps -> Bozone,MT
    Posts
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by djhutch View Post
    How do the people that have skied the QST 118 like 'em?

    I have pair still in the wrapper, but wasn't thrilled Outdoor Gear Lab (who have great climbing gear reviews, maybe more iffy ski gear reviews) rated them dead fucking last:

    https://www.outdoorgearlab.com/topic...st-powder-skis
    Funny review, judging by the picture they tested a few 16/17 models as 17/18 powder skis, most notably the Spur that underwent quite some changes cough-a completely different ski-cough

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    36
    If you donít like em donít tell me ha ha. Iím just getting ready to mount mine tonight


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    United States of Aburdistan
    Posts
    7,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Skidog View Post
    QST 118 185cm is 142, 118, 129
    R2 115 188cm is 139, 115, 131

    I didnt notice a HUGE difference in the way these skied, and would still stick with the recco lines.
    The QST 118 is powder ski with a backbone, the R2 is a powder ski with no backbone. I'm used to buying stiff traditional skis, and when I skied the R2 I had to pussyfoot a bit, it's soft, I skied more gingerly. The QST 118 is a ski where I thought, "This is a total compromise but it's the compromise I'm very happy with". It's much better for going fast and landing cliffs.

    djhutch, people say the QST 118 does fine or good enough on hardpack, but I disagree. Otherwise it's a fun fast ski on powder days, from quick slashes to high speed shit. I have the 192 BTW.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    United States of Aburdistan
    Posts
    7,278
    Quote Originally Posted by djhutch View Post
    How do the people that have skied the QST 118 like 'em?

    I have pair still in the wrapper, but wasn't thrilled Outdoor Gear Lab (who have great climbing gear reviews, maybe more iffy ski gear reviews) rated them dead fucking last:

    https://www.outdoorgearlab.com/topic...st-powder-skis
    "Soft and floaty; best suited for fresh, low-angle powder."

    Ha, tell that to all the Salomon athletes who use this as their daily driver. I may be missing out by not owning a better ski, but I don't know what I'm missing and these skis got much better reviews elsewhere so I don't think I'm riding total duds. This ski made me change my skiing style a bit, but in a good way.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    United States of Aburdistan
    Posts
    7,278
    " For this review, we tested the QST 118 in its 178 cm length"

    "When revved up to speed in secondhand snow, the QST 118 will shutter and bounce out of balance. We suspect that this issue is more specific to our larger testers and would be less pronounced in the longer 185 cm or 192 cm options"

    They didn't ski the 185 or 192???? Fuck these guys. I'm not saying these are stiff skis, they are powder-day only skis, but what a joke.

    Name:  276335_30151_L.jpg
Views: 5614
Size:  72.4 KB
    Name:  276333_15114_L.jpg
Views: 5374
Size:  68.7 KB

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    14,411
    Quote Originally Posted by muted View Post
    " For this review, we tested the QST 118 in its 178 cm length"

    "When revved up to speed in secondhand snow, the QST 118 will shutter and bounce out of balance. We suspect that this issue is more specific to our larger testers and would be less pronounced in the longer 185 cm or 192 cm options"

    They didn't ski the 185 or 192???? Fuck these guys. I'm not saying these are stiff skis, they are powder-day only skis, but what a joke.

    Name:  276335_30151_L.jpg
Views: 5614
Size:  72.4 KB
    Name:  276333_15114_L.jpg
Views: 5374
Size:  68.7 KB
    ive found nearly everything in the salomon line with the tip "honeycomb" to get tossed (in the tips) in cut up snow. Way more pronounced in heavier snow, but still there in even soft cut up. You have to stay on them. Much like you said, pretty much a pow ski.

    I ski my R2 115's as a daily driver at Alta (not yet this year ugh) and find they perform well enough for me. I liked the Czar and really still like my shogun for all conditions. I thought the Czar was a great crud ski (for me anyway), and the shogun, while narrow for most on this site, is super fun in any condition ive ever skied it, and i have probably 150 days on em in all kinds of snow.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,172
    What I can't figure out is exactly who is the QST 106/118 marketed for? One-ski quiver folks? It seems like they're a compromise in every aspect and if you're gonna rock at least 3+ skis in your quiver there are better options out there.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    United States of Aburdistan
    Posts
    7,278
    It's a specialty powder ski. I live in Utah and generally only ski on powder days, so it works quite well. It's absolutely not a compromise in every aspect.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by muted View Post
    It's a specialty powder ski. I live in Utah and generally only ski on powder days, so it works quite well. It's absolutely not a compromise in every aspect.
    Perfect! Thatís exactly why I bought this ski. Thanks Muted. Are you mounted at recommended? Hope to see you on the slopes. Iím a northern Utah guy as well


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    2,285
    Thread drift. (sorry)

    Quote Originally Posted by muted View Post
    " For this review, we tested the QST 118 in its 178 cm length"

    "When revved up to speed in secondhand snow, the QST 118 will shutter and bounce out of balance. We suspect that this issue is more specific to our larger testers and would be less pronounced in the longer 185 cm or 192 cm options"

    They didn't ski the 185 or 192???? Fuck these guys. I'm not saying these are stiff skis, they are powder-day only skis, but what a joke.
    I agree their testing report sucks and confuses, or even misleads readers (e.g. seems like the old Spur is misrepresented as the new Spur, and not upfront about the shorter length of the QST 118 tested.)

    I do believe that a "worthless" report is better than a "negative worth" report which misrepresents or misleads. I don't think my past worthless ski reviews below ever misled any maggots. (Plus those reviews also included valid test results for other ski models tested on the same day.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitamin I View Post
    2013 179cm K2 Pettitor, 120mm waist
    No comment
    Invalid test, because I way overpowered it and should have been testing the 189 instead (not available that day). I could say I felt it would have performed better in those conditions without the high, stiff camber underfoot---but I should just reserve judgment and try the 189 someday.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitamin I View Post
    2011 169 K2 Hellbent 160-132-151
    These evil clowns handflexed ridiculously soft. I did not test them, because the K2 rep did not have anything longer than the 169.
    - TRADE your heavy PROTESTS for my lightweight version at this thread

    "My biggest goal in life has always been to pursue passion and to make dreams a reality. I love my daughter, but if I had to quit my passions for her, then I would be setting the wrong example for her, and I would not be myself anymore. " -Shane

    "I'm gonna go SO OFF that NO ONE's ever gonna see what I'm gonna do!" -Saucerboy

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    5,211
    Quote Originally Posted by djhutch View Post
    . . . wasn't thrilled Outdoor Gear Lab (who have great climbing gear reviews, maybe more iffy ski gear reviews) rated them dead fucking last . . .
    They sent their 200 lb. tester out on a 178 QST 118. They think titanium is used as a laminate in skis. They posted specs and links for the 2017 Spur but a picture of the 2018 model. They tested the Soul 7 HD as a "pow" ski rather than the Super 7 HD or Black Ops. You still think they know what they are talking about?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    3,716
    Bumping this thread - I have scoured the internet but havenít found the answer. I got some 188 QST 106s and am trying to figure out where to mount them, on the line or slightly forward. I want the ski to carve well but also ski a bit looser in the trees. I havenít demoed the ski so I am not sure how easy they are to break loose in the stock configuration. Is there any reason I should go forward of the recommended line?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    947
    LOVE mine at -2cm. Can drive them and still break them loose at will.

    EDIT: mine are last years (and this years, unchanged) Gray colored version

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,236
    I have 18/19's. The line feels spot on. I'll add that I pretty much never mount +, but sometimes mount -.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    3,716
    Cool, thanks. I'll go on the line. I generally like a more forward mount, but too forward and the edging can feel vague. I care less about float and more about balancing quickness and edge hold.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •